Hell- we didn't need any rights anyway, right?

Quote:

---

Are you telling me that you would rather have had Gore

---

Actually- no. The thing I keep telling myself to console myself about the state of this country is that I still don't think I would rather have Gore.

But again, that is not a comment on Bush- its a comment on how pathetic our system is right now. Independents have no real chance at running. Alternate Republicans have no real chance of unseating the incumbent. What we end up with is an election choosing between the lesser of two evils rather than the best person for the job. We are talking about choosing the leader of arguably the most powerful country in the world and we don't even get to pick between solid, qualified candidates because the people best-qualified to run are too smart to get mired down in the political bullshit.

And, I agree completely with BBallad that all other corrupt politics aside- it is THIS administration who has capitalized on 9/11 to strip us of our rights and greatly expand their powers- completely bypassing the legislative and judicial branches to run the country almost solely from the executive side. The checks and balances are there for a reason and I certainly don't want to see this regime running over the Constitution like a juggernaut unchecked.

Quote:

---

In every review of the votes/voting/counts in Florida Bush won.... That's not stealing.

---

Read "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy". Even the "independent" recount performed by the media conglomerate a year later was skewed. It wasn't Bush particularly. It was more the state of Florida, or politics in general that stole the election.

There seems to be enough evidence to suggest a systematic attempt to disenfranchise a good percentage of the population. Jeb Bush and the state of Florida have blatantly defied court orders demanding them to allow the right to vote to thousands of citizens.

The bottom line - going back to the original post on this thread - is that the FBI and the federal government feel that its OK to violate First and Fourth amendment rights of journalists and Adrian Lamo in order to prosecute Lamo. Give them an inch- they take a mile.

Tiger shark, you keep bringing up the past, why didn't bush get binladen when he came into office? why did his administration toss out all of the inteligence the prior administration had gathered on alquida? Did linton have a chance to get binladen, possably (but when he tried the right wing blasted him for nation building, and attempting to distract the nation.) bit so did bush. Hell bush senior and regen where warned agenst armeing the afganistani extreamists in the first place. All of our recent presidents share the blame for 9/11, its the current president that is useing it to grab power and errode our rights. Ask yourself (and try and answer honestly), if clinton was president and the PATRIOT was something his administration pulled what would your reaction be?

I know this is way off topic, but Tony I can't believe you even brought up Bowling for Columbine as a support for your argument. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Michael Moore fabricated the vast majority of the "facts" in his "documentary". Most of that movie is a complete farce and had no business calling itself a documentary. Do a little research on it and you will see what I mean. For starters go check out www.bowlingfortruth.com although there are plenty of other sites that debunk this "documentary".

As far as the rest of this thread goes, I'm going to go back and re-read everything in here and then do some research on my own. After all that is done I'm going to read it again and then I'll probably post something.

BBallad:

Quote:

---

you keep bringing up the past

---

Well.... It's really rather simple old chap..... The past directly leads to the future - it's not the other way around. Since the previous administration was such a horrendous screw up where national defense and intelligence gathering is concerned it left the current administration with a horrible mess to begin to untangle.

Bill _never_ tried to get Osama! When he was offered him on a plate by the Sudan he rejected the offer.

As was said early in this thread - rights are always eroded in extraordinary times - and they have tended to be returned in ordinary times. The fact that some of you are using the prior fact as a tool with which to bash a president you don't like is ludicrous - especially when most of Bush's problems were cause by Billery in the first place.

Quote:

---

Ask yourself (and try and answer honestly), if clinton was president and the PATRIOT was something his administration pulled what would your reaction be?

---

If the circumstances were the same as they are today I would say what I am saying now with the following rider:-

Bill made this bed..... I wonder how long he want's us to lie in it.....

Let's not forget all those lovely FBI files regarding his "enemies" that turned up in the White House while he was there.... "oooops, filing error... ever so sorry.... we'll put them back...... ".

Now let's talk about privacy....... That was the most blatant and egregious misuse of power where privacy was concerned since Watergate - and it exceeds Watergate for the fact that they were after an organization - Billy boy was after the individuals he disliked...... Much more sinister and dangerous if you ask me......

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Tiger Shark
BBallad:



Bill _never_ tried to get Osama! When he was offered him on a plate by the Sudan he rejected the offer.

---

that has been debunked, first Sudan didn't have binladen, second the man trying to offer the US extradition of binladen wasnt a representitive of the Sudaniese goverment...not much of a plate that he was offered on.

look no one here is argueing that clinton was a good president, or that he didn't do bad things. The point is bush is striping away our freedom. That is compleatly seperate from anything that clinton did. Just because clinton was bad dons't make bush good your arguemnts are pure red harrings.

BBallad: Try to follow this......

1. The erosion of privacy is a direct result of 9/11.
2. 9/11 was the direct result of a crippled intelligence apparatus.
3. The crippled intelligence apparatus was a direct result of Clinton's mishandling of it.

See how that works? The opposite would have been:-

1. Clinton fully funded the intelligence community and allowed it to do what it needed to.
2. 9/11 would not have happened.
3. Your privacy would not be being eroded.

This simple theory is called "cause and effect". The cause leads back to Clinton..... So why are you bashing Bush?

Quote:

---

It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Michael Moore fabricated the vast majority of the "facts" in his "documentary"

---

I am aware that there is a great deal of "artistic license" in the movie. I have said repeatedly that statistics are useless because they serve their master and can be spun to make any point you want. Just like Oliver Stone adds a "personal touch" I am sure that Michael Moore did as well.

I won't go point for point. We'll go down a whole new road about whether or not the right to bear arms was really intended the way the NRA professes. But, certain parts can be spun and others are what they are. The population of the United States is around 292 million and we had over 11,000 homicides from firearms. The population of Canada is about 1/10 of the U.S. so person for person you would expect them to have about 1,100 homicide deaths but instead they had only 165. The population of the United Kingdom is about 1/5 of the United States and yet they only had 68 firearm homicides instead of 2,200. Why is it that person for person Americans kill 10 times more than their Canadian cousins or 30 times more than their British cousins? I don't know necessarily agree with Michael Moore's hypothesis, but it bears looking into.

By the way- I went to bowlingfortruth.com but I couldn't find any facts or evidence. Maybe I just wasn't navigating the site well. The FAQ was just whining and counter-whining and the video clips seemed to be directly from the movie. I was looking for more of a point-counterpoint shooting down Michael Moore's facts or offering alternative facts. If that exists somewhere I would appreciate a link to it- you can post here or PM me.

I found an article that those on this thread may find interesting. It doesn't so much pertain to the original topic of this thread- but it seems relevant to the debate that this thread has digressed into. It is an article in the New York Times by David Brooks: The Presidency Wars

<EDIT>
I wanted to add another article I found in the NY Times about the hole we have dug for ourselves in Iraq and the cronyism, nepotism and profiteering that is driving the "reconstruction". Read Paul Krugman's article: Who's Sordid Now?
</EDIT>

Who is to say Adrian hasn't broken into government computers? After all they are prime targets.

Tony: Nice article.

Quote:

---

The core threat to democracy is not in the White House, it's the haters themselves.

---

......... and there seem to be so many of them here on AO. Such a shame......

Quote:

---

Who is to say Adrian hasn't broken into government computers? After all they are prime targets.

---

That is a valid question. Although I am not sure I would consider hacking government computers to automatically classify one as a "terrorist". Maybe Adrian Lamo has been doing some hacking for terrorists or with terrorist intentions. That would explain the use of the PATRIOT Act provisions but would not make me feel any better about them.

I don't like the government being allowed to do things that circumvent the Constitution or our laws in the name of national security. Too much is going on in secret behind closed doors in the name of national security. Too many agendas that have nothing to do with national security are being stamped "national security" and put on the express lane through congress in back rooms where we the people and the press don't get to have any say- because its "national security".

I am all for having national security and having the government do what they need to do to ensure it, but you can't just hijack the whole government system and bypass the checks and balances that have kept things balanced for over 200 years and automatically assume that just because a politician says something is a "national security" issue that it should automatically get the green light.

They are supposed to represent "we the people" and I think they have an obligation to keep us informed of what they are doing and why. Some things must be kept secret in the interest of national security- but we need someone to mediate that label and use a little more discretion regarding which actions and legislation are worthy of that treatment.